I'm not talking about bias here. I'm saying that I think their methods for determining intelligence and critical thinking are the same type of garbage we see from the school system.
because it describes the students being given an essay-question test.
So, in other words, this whole thing was rather meaningless. What we need are more useless tests.
you'll find out how the test was blindly scored looking for certain specific techniques as evidence of critical thinking: “observing, interpreting, evaluating, associating, problem finding, comparing, and flexible thinking”.
Oh, and there's also the fact that these 'solutions' violate the constitution, as has been said numerous times. Does anyone even care whether or not the government follows the very document that spells out its powers, which is also the same document that they explicitly agreed to defend?
if you do not test then the time you find out about a drink driver is when they KILL someone.
Not necessarily. Drunk drivers are found all the time because they were swerving all over the road and driving in a dangerous way.
In any case, if your solution involves violating people's liberties in exchange for security, I want nothing to do with it. I believe that in any free country, the government should have absolutely no power to harass innocent people solely to check their innocence. I also believe anyone who says otherwise is a proponent of tyranny.
If it keeps us safe from terrorists, drugs, child molesters, or other Bad Things, anything is okay. Sacrifice all of your freedoms to stop the Bad Things and just be thankful you're living in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I seriously don't think I would want to hang around people who think the word "female" is creepy to begin with, since they're most likely complete morons.
It's not the data that affects my freedom, it's the laws and regulations of the government that do that.
No. The data was obtained illegally, so it does affect your freedoms.
Misinterpreting the data is what I would consider a minor annoyance.
Oh, really? Cops have busted into the wrong houses while looking for drugs and killed people. I assure you that government thugs are more than capable of ruining your life by mistake.
Sure it will happen, but it's not like not collecting the data would magically stop the SWAT team from knocking on the wrong door.
It would stop some of it, because then they'd have less data to misinterpret and act on.
Mistakes happen and if anything, data provides a way to reduce them.
Ridiculous. It is the data that will give them something to misinterpret. We've already seen how the government misinterprets jokes, so why would you think more data would help? These people don't understand you, your sense of humor, or anything else.
The government snooping around doesn't bother me all that much, as while it might be a waste of money, it really doesn't affect me.
Yeah, it doesn't affect you (Well, it affects your freedoms, but those are worthless, so who cares?), so it doesn't matter. If the government uses all this data to abuse other people, it doesn't matter since it's not happening to you. The fact that the government can change the rules, misinterpret the data, and use it to harass virtually anyone doesn't matter at all.
But I think that even for people who only want practical results, voting for third parties isn't a waste. Voting for 'the lesser of two evils' seems to have exacerbated the problems, rather than actually fixed them; imagine that.
Would you rather live in a country where every cop shot one opposition activist a month, or where every cop asked three people to show him their ids for no reason every day?
X being better than Y does not make X good. What a pointless question.
Because it exists.
That doesn't make me feel better in the least, because many of the warrants are unconstitutional.
So you knowing that some guy has read your email is just as bad as being late for a job interview because some cop frisked you because you were black?
You seemingly keep trying to trivialize the wholesale violation of the liberties of nearly everyone in the country. I don't do so for stop-and-frisk.
What I don't understand is why "someone has power over me, and could (in theory if he really wanted) screw me," is by definition just as bad "that cop just actually screwed me."
In theory? It's happening right now. I see the violation of people's liberties as harm in and of itself, in addition to the fact that they now have the right technology in place to make the US further resemble a police state.
But in the real world being stopped and frisked is a whole order of magnitude worse then having your metadata on a government server.
I don't know what the "real world" is, but I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that the US can't become just like (or similar) to all those other countries in the past and present that were police states. Governments have never missed the opportunity to oppress the people, and stop-and-frisk is just one example of that.
Name one person here talking about it besides me.
You mentioned people who "force" others here to talk about it. I don't see anyone in this article, but it's discussed before in a few articles.
I suspect the reason it (like the constitution-free zones) doesn't come up very often is because there wasn't some leaker constantly leaking 'secrets' to the press, and this affects even people outside of the places that are affected by stop-and-frisk. Suddenly, because it affects their rights, they focus on it more. Aside from the fact that this is an NSA article, so most people will be talking about the NSA.
and implicitly claim that the NSA is worse then stop-and-frisk because it affects more people
I didn't say anything about it being better or worse, just that I don't think it should be trivialized (whether intentional or not).
If we had actual corruption we'd have a completely different set of problems in DC.
We have actual corruption, and we can see the results.
Be careful what you wish for.
I'm careful enough, I think. I value freedom.
In this country people (particularly white people like me), have a very long and sordid history of declaring the most trivial infringement on their rights is the first step to dictatorship, while tolerating literal slavery directed at non-white people. Generally most of the complainers say they're for freedom for everybody, but they don't actually do anything about it.
I fail to see your point, or how it relates to freedom in general. I don't believe in "trivial" infringements.
But they are complaints about a program that is authorized by a warrant (even if it's a bad warrant).
If you know the warrants are bad, why even mention it? I couldn't care less about their warrants; they're not even constitutional.
It has resulted in real-world inconvenience to a very small number of people
As well as infringed upon the freedoms of nearly everyone. I do not see this as a mere inconvenience, nor do I think it's trivial.
most of whom are clearly over-reacting because (like Cartman on South Park) there's no way in hell the NSA cares whether they live or die.
It seems you don't understand the power of information, or why some people believe that any infringement upon individual liberties is anything but trivial.
OTOH Stop-and Frisk is not even technically in compliance with the Fourth because there's no warrant granted.
General warrants aren't in compliance with the fourth amendment, either.
It results in massive inconvenience to a very large group of people.
I have no idea what you're trying to tell me here. If you're trying to get me to think of the NSA issue as a trivial matter, it's simply not going to happen. I see it as extremely dangerous, just like searching random people to check their innocent (both stop-and-frisk, that drunk driving nonsense, and the TSA).
And, true to form, the very very white denizens of Slashdot freak out at least three times a week about the NSA-PRISM thing which inconvenienced them, but they only talk about stop-and-frisk when somebody else forces them to.
Just because people aren't constantly talking about what you want to talk about doesn't mean that what they are talking about is trivial, or that they don't care about it.
And if people "force" them to talk about it, then clearly there are people here talking about it.
I have no freedoms written in law yet I am not ruled by tyranny or oppression.
You almost certainly are. This happened in the US despite the fact that the government has no constitutional authority to do any such thing. If your country does anything similar to this, then I do believe you're being oppressed.
arguably even more functional than you very own without screaming bloody murder every time something happens that disagrees with a 226 year old piece of paper.
Yeah, that constitution is old. Old things are automatically wrong.
You yourself should actually read some history books so you maybe understand what actual oppression and tyranny is.
I think you should read some history books. And the US constitution. And you should also probably realize that all infringements are infringements, regardless of how 'minor' you believe them to be.
I think you need to look up that word in the dictionary. Law enforcement is not harassment.
Forcing random people to stop so you can check their innocence very much meets my definition of harassment.
You're right. That authority is given by the law that specifies you're allowed to drive.
It can't be. Any such law would be unconstitutional.
It's like saying that the government could declare that living in a certain city means you surrender all of your rights; it is, to me, simply absurd.
You know laws, like the ones you defended earlier?
I didn't defend these laws.
You're not under the delusion that the constitution if written today would have the same wording are you?
Whether it would or would not is irrelevant. The government is elected and is expected to follow the constitution. This has been the agreement for hundreds of years. If you don't like the constitution, you have to amend it, not ignore it.
I care so much about laws that they should be reviewed and made relevant. But hey old school is the only way right?
I reviewed the fourth amendment and confirmed its relevancy. Unless you want the government to be able to search anyone for anything, go on fishing expeditions, and do any manner of other things...
So why are we having this discussion if you think what I'm saying is entirely irrelevant?
Because I'm saying I think you're wrong on a number of things.
By the way calling someone names because they disagree with you and call you out on your strange arguments is an instant gauge of maturity.
It is? That sounds rather subjective.
In any case, when I feel that someone is a government bootlicker to an extreme degree, I instantly write them off as a naive imbecile of the highest caliber. I think you qualify.
How do you plan to weasel your way out of that one, you insolent bootlicker?
I have a feeling it will be something like, "The constitution is old, stupid, and stinky! Just ignore it and let the government do whatever it pleases!" If so, to that I say, if the government (and you) can place zero value in the constitution, then I don't recognize the legitimacy of any laws or conditions that allow the government to do things such as this.
To you, I think that should probably be fine. After all, you don't seem to care about the rule of law, or following the law.
Actually that's the fundamental point I'm trying to get across.
To anyone who cares about freedom, it's irrelevant.
Actually they aren't harassing anyone.
Stopping them to find out if they're innocent is harassing them. Nice try, though.
There's no fundamental right to drive.
Which doesn't mean that the government has the authority to search, stop, or harass innocent people for no reason. Nice try, though.
there's laws that say there's conditions on driving
You can't sign yourself into slavery, and you can't sign away your constitutional rights, no matter what the government says. Nice try, though.
and there's laws that allow them to police these conditions.
And in the US, we have a constitution that prohibits the government from doing such things. In fact, in the US, it's considered the highest laws of the land. How do you plan to weasel your way out of that one, you insolent bootlicker?
And you've already made it clear that you don't care about laws, or at least, not the highest law of the land. Or does that only apply when the government stands to lose some of its power?
I don't know why you're going to such lengths to be a government bootlicker, but it's rather disturbing.
Well by all means you are free to have a look at the alternative.
I have. The alternative is fine by me. What is the alternative? Not randomly harassing innocent people.
Maybe if you lived in a land where laws didn't exist you'd appreciate the ones you have.
False dichotomy. Nice try, though.
As for the constitution, a document written before the age of motor cars being read in black and white in today's society is borderline absurd.
Those documents are the only things which give any power to the government at all. Our elected officials make a vow to defend the US constitution, not rip it to shreds.
Just because that law is written on a magic piece of paper doesn't mean it's infallible.
It's not infallible; that's why it can be amended. Educate yourself.
Why is it that I feel much freer here than I would in the USA? Why is it that every draconian law that comes upon us is enforced by the USA in a trade agreement?
Probably because the US government isn't following said constitution, and it's thanks in part to people like you.
It's nice that you have infinite trust in the government and don't care about things such as individual liberties, but please, try to ruin countries where only people like you live, okay? You can have all the tyranny you want; just keep it away from the rest of us.
You place way too much value in a piece of paper
What I place value on is the rule of law and the idea of a government which is only given certain powers. What I place value on are the ideas written on that piece of paper you seem to abhor so much.
but then again so would I if I lived in a society that bent over every time the government comes in holding some lube.
You likely do live in such a society. In every country in the world, people's freedoms are being violated.
You should check out death statistics then and note that dying in a car accident is the highest chance of death you have that's not in your control.
That's utterly irrelevant.
Why we tolerate an intoxication limit which will have some people slurring their words while they are operating machinery around others I will simply not understand.
You do realize that they're not just harassing people who are drinking and driving, right?
And their preferred course of action is for the government to violate the constitution. If you say that the government should be able to violate the very document that spells out its powers to begin with to keep people safe, then that, to me, is the same as implicitly crying for a government that can do whatever it pleases.
It is not okay to me, and it will never be okay to me, to harass innocent people to find out if they're innocent. In any free country, I believe people should be presumed innocent, and I believe that authorities should have to have proof of wrongdoing before they investigate you. I find the idea of randomly stopping people to 'keep people safe' an absolutely disgusting practice that should not take place in any truly free society.
All that means is that these people are unprincipled cowards. The real way to see if people care about liberty is by observing how they react to real threats; if they sacrifice liberties to keep themselves safe, then what they desire is not a free country.
most Americans have quite a high statistical chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident.
And? I'd be opposed to the TSA, NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, and all the other nonsense that's happening even if they were effective.
What does it say when people who live in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave are actively opposed to having freedom?
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if it's subjective
I'm not talking about bias here. I'm saying that I think their methods for determining intelligence and critical thinking are the same type of garbage we see from the school system.
The kids who are smart, driven, and interested in stuff have.... wait for it... parents who are smart, driven, and interested in stuff.
Not necessarily.
Potty mouth
That was very offensive of you. I command that you not say anything like that ever again, because I don't like it. Please let's keep it clean here.
because it describes the students being given an essay-question test.
So, in other words, this whole thing was rather meaningless. What we need are more useless tests.
you'll find out how the test was blindly scored looking for certain specific techniques as evidence of critical thinking: “observing, interpreting, evaluating, associating, problem finding, comparing, and flexible thinking”.
That sounds utterly subjective.
I don't even think the things they used to 'measure' this supposed increase in critical thinking skills were valid in the least.
Somewhat unrelated, but it seems like certain people want this to be true.
Oh, and there's also the fact that these 'solutions' violate the constitution, as has been said numerous times. Does anyone even care whether or not the government follows the very document that spells out its powers, which is also the same document that they explicitly agreed to defend?
if you do not test then the time you find out about a drink driver is when they KILL someone.
Not necessarily. Drunk drivers are found all the time because they were swerving all over the road and driving in a dangerous way.
In any case, if your solution involves violating people's liberties in exchange for security, I want nothing to do with it. I believe that in any free country, the government should have absolutely no power to harass innocent people solely to check their innocence. I also believe anyone who says otherwise is a proponent of tyranny.
If it keeps us safe from terrorists, drugs, child molesters, or other Bad Things, anything is okay. Sacrifice all of your freedoms to stop the Bad Things and just be thankful you're living in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
by taking a real job in say, construction.
That isn't a Real Job. All the Real Jobs involve digging giant holes in the ground using only a spoon.
It's usually not so common, and to me, the things that people claim are "common sense" rarely make sense.
I seriously don't think I would want to hang around people who think the word "female" is creepy to begin with, since they're most likely complete morons.
It's not the data that affects my freedom, it's the laws and regulations of the government that do that.
No. The data was obtained illegally, so it does affect your freedoms.
Misinterpreting the data is what I would consider a minor annoyance.
Oh, really? Cops have busted into the wrong houses while looking for drugs and killed people. I assure you that government thugs are more than capable of ruining your life by mistake.
Sure it will happen, but it's not like not collecting the data would magically stop the SWAT team from knocking on the wrong door.
It would stop some of it, because then they'd have less data to misinterpret and act on.
Mistakes happen and if anything, data provides a way to reduce them.
Ridiculous. It is the data that will give them something to misinterpret. We've already seen how the government misinterprets jokes, so why would you think more data would help? These people don't understand you, your sense of humor, or anything else.
The government snooping around doesn't bother me all that much, as while it might be a waste of money, it really doesn't affect me.
Yeah, it doesn't affect you (Well, it affects your freedoms, but those are worthless, so who cares?), so it doesn't matter. If the government uses all this data to abuse other people, it doesn't matter since it's not happening to you. The fact that the government can change the rules, misinterpret the data, and use it to harass virtually anyone doesn't matter at all.
once you've gone to all that trouble
What trouble? The nonexistent sort of trouble?
But I think that even for people who only want practical results, voting for third parties isn't a waste. Voting for 'the lesser of two evils' seems to have exacerbated the problems, rather than actually fixed them; imagine that.
Enough votes for a third party candidate can send a message, so I wouldn't say it's a complete waste.
Would you rather live in a country where every cop shot one opposition activist a month, or where every cop asked three people to show him their ids for no reason every day?
X being better than Y does not make X good. What a pointless question.
Because it exists.
That doesn't make me feel better in the least, because many of the warrants are unconstitutional.
So you knowing that some guy has read your email is just as bad as being late for a job interview because some cop frisked you because you were black?
You seemingly keep trying to trivialize the wholesale violation of the liberties of nearly everyone in the country. I don't do so for stop-and-frisk.
What I don't understand is why "someone has power over me, and could (in theory if he really wanted) screw me," is by definition just as bad "that cop just actually screwed me."
In theory? It's happening right now. I see the violation of people's liberties as harm in and of itself, in addition to the fact that they now have the right technology in place to make the US further resemble a police state.
But in the real world being stopped and frisked is a whole order of magnitude worse then having your metadata on a government server.
I don't know what the "real world" is, but I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that the US can't become just like (or similar) to all those other countries in the past and present that were police states. Governments have never missed the opportunity to oppress the people, and stop-and-frisk is just one example of that.
Name one person here talking about it besides me.
You mentioned people who "force" others here to talk about it. I don't see anyone in this article, but it's discussed before in a few articles.
I suspect the reason it (like the constitution-free zones) doesn't come up very often is because there wasn't some leaker constantly leaking 'secrets' to the press, and this affects even people outside of the places that are affected by stop-and-frisk. Suddenly, because it affects their rights, they focus on it more. Aside from the fact that this is an NSA article, so most people will be talking about the NSA.
and implicitly claim that the NSA is worse then stop-and-frisk because it affects more people
I didn't say anything about it being better or worse, just that I don't think it should be trivialized (whether intentional or not).
If we had actual corruption we'd have a completely different set of problems in DC.
We have actual corruption, and we can see the results.
Be careful what you wish for.
I'm careful enough, I think. I value freedom.
In this country people (particularly white people like me), have a very long and sordid history of declaring the most trivial infringement on their rights is the first step to dictatorship, while tolerating literal slavery directed at non-white people. Generally most of the complainers say they're for freedom for everybody, but they don't actually do anything about it.
I fail to see your point, or how it relates to freedom in general. I don't believe in "trivial" infringements.
But they are complaints about a program that is authorized by a warrant (even if it's a bad warrant).
If you know the warrants are bad, why even mention it? I couldn't care less about their warrants; they're not even constitutional.
It has resulted in real-world inconvenience to a very small number of people
As well as infringed upon the freedoms of nearly everyone. I do not see this as a mere inconvenience, nor do I think it's trivial.
most of whom are clearly over-reacting because (like Cartman on South Park) there's no way in hell the NSA cares whether they live or die.
It seems you don't understand the power of information, or why some people believe that any infringement upon individual liberties is anything but trivial.
OTOH Stop-and Frisk is not even technically in compliance with the Fourth because there's no warrant granted.
General warrants aren't in compliance with the fourth amendment, either.
It results in massive inconvenience to a very large group of people.
I have no idea what you're trying to tell me here. If you're trying to get me to think of the NSA issue as a trivial matter, it's simply not going to happen. I see it as extremely dangerous, just like searching random people to check their innocent (both stop-and-frisk, that drunk driving nonsense, and the TSA).
And, true to form, the very very white denizens of Slashdot freak out at least three times a week about the NSA-PRISM thing which inconvenienced them, but they only talk about stop-and-frisk when somebody else forces them to.
Just because people aren't constantly talking about what you want to talk about doesn't mean that what they are talking about is trivial, or that they don't care about it.
And if people "force" them to talk about it, then clearly there are people here talking about it.
I have no freedoms written in law yet I am not ruled by tyranny or oppression.
You almost certainly are. This happened in the US despite the fact that the government has no constitutional authority to do any such thing. If your country does anything similar to this, then I do believe you're being oppressed.
arguably even more functional than you very own without screaming bloody murder every time something happens that disagrees with a 226 year old piece of paper.
Yeah, that constitution is old. Old things are automatically wrong.
You yourself should actually read some history books so you maybe understand what actual oppression and tyranny is.
I think you should read some history books. And the US constitution. And you should also probably realize that all infringements are infringements, regardless of how 'minor' you believe them to be.
I think you need to look up that word in the dictionary. Law enforcement is not harassment.
Forcing random people to stop so you can check their innocence very much meets my definition of harassment.
You're right. That authority is given by the law that specifies you're allowed to drive.
It can't be. Any such law would be unconstitutional.
It's like saying that the government could declare that living in a certain city means you surrender all of your rights; it is, to me, simply absurd.
You know laws, like the ones you defended earlier?
I didn't defend these laws.
You're not under the delusion that the constitution if written today would have the same wording are you?
Whether it would or would not is irrelevant. The government is elected and is expected to follow the constitution. This has been the agreement for hundreds of years. If you don't like the constitution, you have to amend it, not ignore it.
I care so much about laws that they should be reviewed and made relevant. But hey old school is the only way right?
I reviewed the fourth amendment and confirmed its relevancy. Unless you want the government to be able to search anyone for anything, go on fishing expeditions, and do any manner of other things...
So why are we having this discussion if you think what I'm saying is entirely irrelevant?
Because I'm saying I think you're wrong on a number of things.
By the way calling someone names because they disagree with you and call you out on your strange arguments is an instant gauge of maturity.
It is? That sounds rather subjective.
In any case, when I feel that someone is a government bootlicker to an extreme degree, I instantly write them off as a naive imbecile of the highest caliber. I think you qualify.
How do you plan to weasel your way out of that one, you insolent bootlicker?
I have a feeling it will be something like, "The constitution is old, stupid, and stinky! Just ignore it and let the government do whatever it pleases!" If so, to that I say, if the government (and you) can place zero value in the constitution, then I don't recognize the legitimacy of any laws or conditions that allow the government to do things such as this.
To you, I think that should probably be fine. After all, you don't seem to care about the rule of law, or following the law.
Actually that's the fundamental point I'm trying to get across.
To anyone who cares about freedom, it's irrelevant.
Actually they aren't harassing anyone.
Stopping them to find out if they're innocent is harassing them. Nice try, though.
There's no fundamental right to drive.
Which doesn't mean that the government has the authority to search, stop, or harass innocent people for no reason. Nice try, though.
there's laws that say there's conditions on driving
You can't sign yourself into slavery, and you can't sign away your constitutional rights, no matter what the government says. Nice try, though.
and there's laws that allow them to police these conditions.
And in the US, we have a constitution that prohibits the government from doing such things. In fact, in the US, it's considered the highest laws of the land. How do you plan to weasel your way out of that one, you insolent bootlicker?
And you've already made it clear that you don't care about laws, or at least, not the highest law of the land. Or does that only apply when the government stands to lose some of its power?
I don't know why you're going to such lengths to be a government bootlicker, but it's rather disturbing.
Well by all means you are free to have a look at the alternative.
I have. The alternative is fine by me. What is the alternative? Not randomly harassing innocent people.
Maybe if you lived in a land where laws didn't exist you'd appreciate the ones you have.
False dichotomy. Nice try, though.
As for the constitution, a document written before the age of motor cars being read in black and white in today's society is borderline absurd.
Those documents are the only things which give any power to the government at all. Our elected officials make a vow to defend the US constitution, not rip it to shreds.
Just because that law is written on a magic piece of paper doesn't mean it's infallible.
It's not infallible; that's why it can be amended. Educate yourself.
Why is it that I feel much freer here than I would in the USA? Why is it that every draconian law that comes upon us is enforced by the USA in a trade agreement?
Probably because the US government isn't following said constitution, and it's thanks in part to people like you.
It's nice that you have infinite trust in the government and don't care about things such as individual liberties, but please, try to ruin countries where only people like you live, okay? You can have all the tyranny you want; just keep it away from the rest of us.
You place way too much value in a piece of paper
What I place value on is the rule of law and the idea of a government which is only given certain powers. What I place value on are the ideas written on that piece of paper you seem to abhor so much.
but then again so would I if I lived in a society that bent over every time the government comes in holding some lube.
You likely do live in such a society. In every country in the world, people's freedoms are being violated.
You should check out death statistics then and note that dying in a car accident is the highest chance of death you have that's not in your control.
That's utterly irrelevant.
Why we tolerate an intoxication limit which will have some people slurring their words while they are operating machinery around others I will simply not understand.
You do realize that they're not just harassing people who are drinking and driving, right?
No they want the government to keep them safe
And their preferred course of action is for the government to violate the constitution. If you say that the government should be able to violate the very document that spells out its powers to begin with to keep people safe, then that, to me, is the same as implicitly crying for a government that can do whatever it pleases.
It is not okay to me, and it will never be okay to me, to harass innocent people to find out if they're innocent. In any free country, I believe people should be presumed innocent, and I believe that authorities should have to have proof of wrongdoing before they investigate you. I find the idea of randomly stopping people to 'keep people safe' an absolutely disgusting practice that should not take place in any truly free society.
All that means is that these people are unprincipled cowards. The real way to see if people care about liberty is by observing how they react to real threats; if they sacrifice liberties to keep themselves safe, then what they desire is not a free country.
most Americans have quite a high statistical chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident.
And? I'd be opposed to the TSA, NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, and all the other nonsense that's happening even if they were effective.
What does it say when people who live in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave are actively opposed to having freedom?